hamp...probably opening a whole new can of worms here... From the owners perspective, I'd think the printer on Franklin would say his new building is better than what was there. Two words in your post could cause a lot of conjecture, first being 'historic', and the second being 'better'. The printer didn't consider the italianate gray building to be historic. I'm sure someone here would be willing to argue otherwise (but that's been discussed previously). I would be interested to hear what others think of the 'new' printshop on Franklin, is it a net gain for the street?

Since I am one of the people that advocate people should buy a property and restore it themselves, let me respond to that. . .

STEEL: I don't think I ever said the "preservation community" (if such a thing exists - we can debate that) broke the law, or that they don't have the right to speak up, or that, as citizens, we don't have an expectation that the law be followed, or even that good hasn't come from preservationists work. What I'm saying is, its easy to spend other people's money. Its easy to yell "This building should be saved." Its even easy to file the injunction in court, compared to the long, hard, risky road of actually buying a building, rehabing it, and making it successful. No lawsuit ever saved the building. It just stopped it from being knocked down.

You said it yourself - private citizens, through years of hard work, rebuild buildings and make them successful. My frustration is that very few in the preservation community, that I know of, can say they "followed through," on a specific building. I guess what I'm saying is, I have more respect for Rocci Termini, or the folks at CityView who redid the Larkin, because they put their time, money, and reputation on the line to do some work. Not all of us are developers. But as I've said before, you don't need to be a developer, or have lots of money, to put your money where your mouth is in Buffalo. You can get a historic 100 year old bungalow for 10-20, and be part of preserving Buffalo's heritage. Look to David Torke as an example - when he spots a troubled building, he finds a BUYER.

And before anyone jumps on me again, let me stress I moved back to Buffalo for her history, architecture, and authenticity. Most homes in Black Rock would be historic treasures in 75% of the rest of the country. I'm just looking for more realism and less self-congratulatory-rose-colored-glasses..

This relates to Enrique14150's comment. Here is a page from the WNY Heritage Inc. site that I thought was sort of interesting. Buffalo City Block Demolished for "Progress" The page explains how the Ellicott Square Building in 1895 replaced an entire city block. What I think is odd is how the author applies the current attitude toward urban developement/preservation to an 1890s scenario.

"Why did no civic-minded preservationists complain about the wholesale demolition of an entire block so that this "mammoth" 10-story structure of steel, concrete, brick and terra cotta could be constructed, casting its enormous shadow over the human-scaled streetscape?"

Same block of Main, also on the death-watch: City-owned 918-20 Main Street with a collapsed roof:

Can the City fine itself?

People CAN save buildings without buying and restoring them. ANYONE can seek a Landmark Designation for ANY building in a city, which creates a national level of protection for a building. The Livery has been waiting for 22 years for someone to take the time to protect it. If anyone was concerned about its future before it started to fall down, they could have applied for a Landmark Designation status, however Buffalo's preservation community waits until the 11th hour to start the fight. If people truly want to be proactive and save buildings in Buffalo, they need to target buildings like the Livery, and seek protection for them, BEFORE they become a hazard to the health, safety and welfare of the community. It is not difficult, it only requires a little bit of work. It is frustrating when I visit Buffalo and talk to people within the preservation community, go on tours, etc. and find that the leaders in the movement don't know or understand how to effectively create various levels of protection for historic buildings before they become threatened. The largest problem is that the preservationists in Buffalo aren't proactive, or educated in the field of preservation itself. That is what gives us a bad name. If a lawsuit is your first step in saving a building, you're already too late.

I remember walking through 591 Delaware when it was just three was wondering how the hell it was even standing. Eventually they put in a couple pieces of steel to support the structure until a reuse was found. One was and the reconstruction of the building is complete. Same was done for the genesee block. Reinforcement is cheap and can keep a building alive for many years until the neighborhood or market can complete the job.

We need to make a point that mothballing great buildings for future use isn't a bad thing. It is probably cheaper than a wholesale demolition and at least gives the structure a chance.

Then again with proper maintenance and city hall intervention this situation shouldn't even exist. Honestly we need an administration with some courage so stand up against negligent homeowners. This isn't just on the west side either. This whole demolition by 'neglect' had torn our city apart. The city should give people 2-3 years from their first violations. If they don't make progress to secure and stabilize the structure take it through eminent domain. If no significant work has been done they have now proven to be irresponsible property owners and their neglect is going to become a safety hazard for neighbors, pedestrians, firefighters and many others. It is now a life safety issue and whether they own the property or not they are not allowed to endanger others around them.

I think we have enough precedent of falls bricks and crumbling buildings to show what another 5 - 10 years will bring.

I wish that all the building downtown could be saved and have a proper owner fill them and take care of them. One of the main problems seems to be that nobody bothers to put pressure on owners until it is almost too late. From the post you can see that what can be done with the buildings, but too many suffer demolition. What needs to be done is to have someone who handles things like historic building issues go around and start documenting and placing buildings on the historic list so that the pressure can be put on the owners. Nothing in Buffalo is historic until it is about to be torn down and who can blame the owners for wanting to tear them down in the state that many are in, but some owners are definately to blame for the condition. One thing that I wonder is how does payment for the demolition work? I am somewhat familar with how a home is demolished in terms of the city placing fines on the owner and those fines being placed in a fund that will eventually pay for the demolition, but for a building of this size, how would that work?

Steel, the brick work on 591 was never exposed to the elements. It was a 'firebomb' thrown up a stairway. Saving the shell made some sense. On Cunninghams property, the building was fine, but it did have a hole punched in the side from an aborted demo (nothing approaching the deterioration of the livery).

The Church was such a significant investment, by one of the few deep pocketed individuals in our community. But it's underlying structure was never as far gone as the livery. Comparing the projects and holding out hope to individuals that may be less 'architecually aware' as you, seems reckless.

Simple question, would you go on the roof of the livery? God bless all the preservationists working on this one, but doubly bless the guy's you send up there to fix the roof (it won't reach that point, but why bother holding out false hope?). Could you even insure such a project? I doubt it. Could you a get a commercial lender for a building this far gone? No.

As a person who sees these buildings on a daily basis, and knows a fair amount of the back story to all but the Web, your post is misleading. Maybe we just disagree, but for me this post calls into question the veracity of your past and future posts.

girl. It wasn't the lack of effort by preservation minded people before the 12th hour it was the inaction of the city to force the owners to actually follow the law and maintain their structure. The preservationist have been fighting for 5 - 10 years but no one listens to them until the demo crews show up. And for all the people not involved it just appears they show up at the last minute when they have been fighting to get this structure stabilized for a long time.

People are displaced from their homes because of this. The local tv coverage inteviews a person who can't go home, then shows a wall that is falling, with a voice over from an 'activist' explaining why the building should stay up. To the average suburbanite with passing interest in the city, the preservationist looks quite a bit worse than just 'really annoying'.

Blackrocklifer - So you are saying that someone who citicizes a preservationist for any of a variety of different reasons is not community minded? That by questioning the validity of saving a structure, or the motives for keeping a structure that prevents development of a new one (think HO silos), a person is not being community minded? That questioning the motives of a few people with a narrow focus is a bad thing for the community?

I think that you have a very narrow perspective on the world and what truly creates success in the city.

One last thing I forgot - you asked what about everyone that doesn't have the skills or $$$ to be a developer. They don't need to do it themselves - that's why LLC's and non-profit corps form. Get three friends, buy a "Non-profits for Dummies" book, and start your restoration corp. Or they can join one that somebody else formed. Or they can go volunteer at a project that still needs lots of help (Central Terminal comes to mind). Or they can restore homes with Habitat for Humanity. Or they can take apart firetraps with Buffalo ReUse. Any one of those things, from buying the property themselves to showing up a ReUse function, is more productive than complaining on this blog and wishing someone would fix up the Livery.

STEEL - you are right that the well meaning citizens trying to "save" the livery do not deserve anyone's derision. They are trying to do the right thing (in my opinion), and more than any of us, have to live with the consequences. I also don't want to give a free pass to landlords who let their buildings lot, but perhaps we disagree about whether a landlord's ability to fix up a structure is of consequence (obviously, this landlord seems to be able to).

But getting back to my original point, I was not saying that the success of these projects is rose colored, but rather THE MEANS BY WHICH THEY BECAME SUCCESSFUL, is becoming glossed over. Read these posts, comments and stories the last week, and you would think that if you get enough signatures and protest enough, then the Livery will be a mixed-use development in 6 months. I think neighbors new to the preservation scene will become very disillusioned very quickly when they win in court, but the building still falls down because no white knight with $5million shows up.

I believe you have left out the most important step in the whole preservation process. You show buildings with before and after photos. The implication is: the building was in bad shape, everyone said this is horrible, lots of people signed petitions, lawsuits were filed in court, the community came together, we all believed in the same thing, and then POOF out popped loft apartments and a new coffee shop. This ignores the fact that an individual, or group, stepped in, took a risk, borrowed some money, bought the place, and then the real work began. The Graycliff Conservancy bought the estate. The Darwin Martin House was purchased by the corp. Hodgson Russ took on the Guaranty Building. Ani Difranci bought the Church. That is where the preservation took place. Not with well meaning platitudes.

But to your last point (if everyone needs to be a developer, then we are in dire straits), I couldn't agree more. That is why we are in dire straights. We have a city full of beautiful, historic, expensive to maintain buildings of all sizes and varieties. Buying a house in many parts of the city is taking on a historic preservation. Which is why lots of people live in new houses in the suburbs. There is not enough money in Buffalo in the hands of enough well meaning people to preserve all the projects that deserve it, big and small. And don't tell me "This isn't about saving everything, its about saving anything:" you just gave a whole list of successful projects, so obviously we're saving something.

Hamp - The Buffalo Casino will be an excellent example when it is completed. This structure will be more useful than the historic and preservation worthy H-O Grain Silo that once stood on that parcel of land.

Demolition of the historic Oldman Boiler Works on Illinois Street to build the HSBC Arena. This building was a major player in Buffalo's industrial rise and Great Lakes shipping. It would have fit in to the historic Canal and cobblestone district, but we built a very nice replacement to the Aud instead. I think that this was an improvement.

In my opinion, the parking lots and shovel ready lots that remain after the demolition of many of the neglected "master pieces" that you pine for, may be better for the city. This city is not open for development of existing structures, the preservations are seen as obstructionist and roadblocks to progress. We have a broken system that allows structures to rot away to the point that they require demolition, or until they reach the point where rehabilitation is no longer an economically or structurally viable option, then you get 25 cause-heads running in late with their home made signs lauding the historic significance and importance of the structure.

Both sides have been debated ad-nauseum on this blog. Sometimes it is better to build new than to save the old, unfortunately for all, Buffalo lacks the impetus for new development. We do not need new buildings in Buffalo because we can barely fill the old ones that we have. Fix the economy and resolve the political issues, and then maybe we wouldn't have these buildings rotting on their foundations, unused for half a century.

The Livery is a symptom of a larger illness, the parking lots are a symptom of the same illness. Some development has to happen on the corpse of an older building, it happens, get used to it. Some buildings can be saved after years of neglect, especially if they have an investor who is willing to spend more than the building is worth to repair it. Think about what would happen to the Central Terminal if a company decided to spend the money to rebuild it as office space, at a price tag that is 3x the cost of a new build. It would be a wonderful day! Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where cost and ROI matter.

Sometimes nostalgia is cost prohibitive.

I'm not sure if the Center for Excellence replaced anything, but the Erie County Public Safety Building is a sure upgrade from the old building that I can barely remember now. The new Federal Courthouse and the Gates Circle Tower will also be a huge step up from the older buildings that they will replace.

Also, we have a large collection of newer buildings that have been underrated. The Library downtown and Legoland in Amherst come to mind right away but there are many well designed buildings(schools, community centers, libraries, chruches) around WNY that are underappreciated.

Does anyone have an expose on buildings that were not 'saved' and resulted in new developments?

It's nice to think we can save everything, but where will the money come from? The government can step in and do it, but if it's not viable then we're wasting our money. Thus we're dependent on private developers to refurbish these places. In that case, it has to be economically attractive, cost to benefit. Some of these buildings can reasonably be refurbished and re-used for an economic profit. Many, including a lot of these 100-year-old wooden houses, cannot (end of their natural life-span unless they've been taken care of). We should save what is viable but don't go too crazy about it. It seems like this town gets carried away and provides further proof that we're stuck in our past and just fine with the way things are. We complain that we want change but we don't mean it. Or maybe it's that I kinda agree with the preservationists but like most uber-advocates, they get really annoying about it and they're hard to overtly support.

To follow up on girlinthebuff and bfloarchguy;

Is there a simple list of buildings in the city that are travelling a similar path as the Livery.

It seeems to me that there are not enough knowledgeable preservationists, despite their passion, to wage successful battles given the number of theaters involved.

If these folks were able to provide the unwashed masses with a few simple details (Site, Owner, History of Complaints, Photos) along with a plan of action (Who to call, What to say, etc) , perhaps there would be more victories.

To be honest, I often drove by theLivery and thought it was an old Fire Hall and had no idea it was in such disrepair. I certainly did not think it was coming to such an end and I am quite sure this puts me in the majority. There must be some way of targeting these properties at the beginning of their decline as opposed to the state that most are in when the issue becomes more "public."

The leaders of the Preservationist "movement," really need to strengthen their public relations' arm. Aside from the Livery, the only other battles I remember having a lot of press were that of the Atwater House ( more than likely due to Pano himself and/or it's location) and the Church (having a Grammy winner involved doesn't hurt). Structures off the beaten path simply aren't going to attract the necessary outcry unless the general public get involved.

Without having a simple but effective plan of attack, backed by a winning argument (simply, the before and after pictures of the Birge Mansion would do) you will never receive the public backing necessary to really bring about change.

Graphic, you're correct that currently, a complaint needs to be received. However, a couple other things will trigger housing court. In the case you mention of the 'slumlord' on the west side, if it's a multiple dwelling, he's now required to be registered. Also, for his Certificate of Occupancy to be valid, the building needs to be inspected every three years. The computer system is finding landlords that don't play by the rules, this to me seems to be different than in the past.

Once in the housing court system, an owner can string the process along in any number of ways. Making simple improvements shows the court the person is trying, and nothing is likely to happen. The issue in housing court, and I've said it before.... the worst properties in Buffalo are apt to have fallen into a condition where the last known owner is now in long term care, or has died, and no one involved in the estate has an interest in keeping the property. If you have a 90 year old in a nursing home that kept up his taxes (meaning it's not going to tax sale), what exactly is housing court supposed to do?

1 vote for tony to go away!!

Hamp - Happening, or going to happen? How long are we going to wait for this master plan to go into effect?

Does anyone know where things stand with the Richardson complex at BPC? The state committed a large sum to stabilize the buildings, but I don't think much has been done yet. I don't know if it's the usual bureaucratic delays or if the job is so huge that they don't know where to begin.

These are nice examples. On the savethelivery site they have a link to a number of photographs from BEFORE the most recent collapse. The fifth, sixth or seventh picture shows sunlight streaming in where the roof meets the top of the wall. Having some knowledge of each of the buildings pictured, none of these structures have three stories of stacked brick that was put through what this building has had to endure. In the pictures I mention earlier, one can clearly see a 2x4 with a single post in the middle, that is stressed beyond any safe standard. It's too bad, but these pictures would seem to prove that there's not enough here to work with.

While it wasn't your intent, this post seems to say to me, look what you can do when you have a stable structure to work with. The livery seems twenty years past that point.

Steel, actually, it was TWO votes from Toni. But who's counting?

Nice article. Thank you.

People are displaced from their homes because of this. The local tv coverage inteviews a person who can't go home, then shows a wall that is falling, with a voice over from an 'activist' explaining why the building should stay up. To the average suburbanite with passing interest in the city, the preservationist looks quite a bit worse than just 'really annoying'.

Einstein - YES - across from the granite works there was a similar row the 19th century buildings that were not "saved" and torn down. go check it out, the result is great. (sarcasm)

Einstein is forgetting that there has been a massive amount of money and construction in the area. It was just outside of buffalo. We robbed peter to build paul. I don't buy the not enough money or wealth in the area argument to save these structure we just don't want to spend the money in a way that would save these places. We would rather build a new strip mall and senior housing complex on transit than renovate a street in the city.

There is plenty of wealth around, we just spent 40 years spreading it out so thinly that we don't even realize money was spent at all.

As I understand it, the neighbors brought in an engineer to look at the Livery. He/she said parts of it were salvageable. I don't know this person's credentials, but I'll trust his/her opinion over someone posting here. Or the Freudenheim's engineer, who said everything was fine a few weeks before the building started to crumble. Or the city inspectors, who would condemn Fort Knox if it meant that they could knock off early on a Friday afternoon.

these people have let a few of their property's go in this direction, yet with all the yelling and fights about them, why do people still patronize the Art Gallery of "not so good" Buffalonians, who seem not to care about the city?

Nobody imagines the construction of luxury condos to commence the day the building is saved. These people are not delusional. However they could imagine the building stabilized and properly maintained by the owner even if he chooses to leave it vacant.

STEEL's article here is meant to debunk those who think it is beyond salvagable, pointing to other building that have been in similar or worse condition and brought back to life. Whether someone will come along to save it is another question. I would not discourage anyone's efforts with regard to the building on the speculation that nothing will come of it.

Quinn, you are obviously a caring individual and a net positive for the community. A slight issue is that while you may be able to offer a certain amount of time pro bono, the same can't be said for the laborers that will be needed for the very difficult work of reconstructing the 'shell' that you may get saved. There's an expression, 'blind folded light barers destroy what they profess to enlighten.' We are in agreement that preserving Buffalo's heritage is important ( a fight that I'm actively engaged in). But with such limited resources, battles need to be chosen carefully. This is a battle with no proposed end game. Proceding without some idea of financing borders on zealotry, not preservation.

Prod,

There is nothing rose colored about the success of the projects shown here. I find it very odd that there is so much derision rained down on the people putting in the effort to save these buildings while the process and people who let the buildings get to the crisis condition get a free pass.

People are annoyed at the ones who made it possible for Termini to do what he does well but feel so bad for the owners who are not allowed to let their buildings collapse. Money is taken from the pockets of every citizen of the city for by the owners of each of these rotting buildings. Not just in demolition cost but in lost property value and self esteem.

Also many if not the majority of the people protesting the demolition of the Livery live in its shadow. They have purchase historic homes and renovated them with great care. But that is beyond the point. If saving these irreplaceable, worth repeating IRREPLACEABLE, buildings depends on everyone,s ability to become a developer then Buffalo is in very dire circumstances. Do I need to become a civil rights lawyer to protest racism? Should citizens sit on their thumbs while they see their city being degraded around them because they don't have the funds and knowledge to become a developer?

Girl,

I have never heard that story. Can you give a source. And if true that Tielman did not like the Statler windows does that mean these buildings should not have been saved?

Einstein.. sure look at the 50% of downtown full of great new developments called Parking Lots. OK I jest there are a couple sites that were cleared and made way for new developments (Key Towers, Tishman Blg, City Hall even could be considered one) But the problem is most sites are cleared and left clear without a development plan. And when so few structures have actually been saved and so much 'shovel ready sites' there is little to no real need to take more buildings down for development purposes.

To all who are so quick to criticize those of us who advocate for preservation, Tell us what YOU have done for this community. Most preservation minded people truly care about this city and have donated time and energy to make things better. The projects and neighborhoods that are successful are mainly because of PRESERVATION.

yeah everywhere you see a gas station, strip mall and single story concrete block building that makes your soul hurt a little you can relish in the fact that the preservationists lost and those buildings were not saved.

exactly right Quinn

Einstein- I am not saying that only preservationists are community minded. I am asking all the armchair quarterbacks what they have done to improve our city.

So one vote from Toni to get rid of all these buildings.

enrique I fully agree. We shouldn't save structures if there is going to be an improvement in a new proposal. If the a proposed development is really an upgrade for the city then there is a stronger case for demolition. No one was complaining about the demolition of the Mobius structures on Elmwood or the park lane for historic or preservation reasons. People argued on other more personal grounds sometimes in the guise of preservation (something not noted by many).

But the destruction of this building isn't one of those cases. Most demolitions are not in that category. They are demolition by neglect without a plan, without anything to fill in the gap left behind. People 100 years ago would have only demolished something to build something new and grander for the city. Homes become armories, parks, markets, often built with a higher level of architecture than what was there. We demolish stuff today to build parking lotsm, strip plaza's and the end product leaves the city feeling worse, emptier and more boring.

Hindsight is 20/20 when it comes to the words progress also. The Tishman and Main Place Malls were probably heralded as saviors of downtown and got the public support to take entire blocks, streets and GORGEOUS historic buildings (erie county savings bank) to bring in something new. back then it could 'almost' be understandable because the city was still full of buildings (it is a shame that those specific ones came down because of their unique quality).

'Progress' that has the merit to withstand the preservationist scrutiny. Probably the M&T tower I would say has been a fine addition to the city. The plaza and buildings are a step above the others. and I feel worth having around. Maybe not in the last 25 years though.

estreet has some good points, there needs to be a better organization among people and preservationists to get into contact with people before anything becomes newsworthy.

I don't think making a huge list of 'historic' buildings is the right way to go. We need to have a better system in place that allows for the proper maintenance of ALL structures and a city that wishes to keep itself clean and in good condition. Lists and debate about historicity only anger people and draw up personal subjective feelings about age and style.

ALL buildings in Buffalo are worth maintaining now we just need to city to pressure people to do what they were supposed to be doing, be responsible land owners. And offer advice, help and routes that would prevent this from happening to any structure and especially those with character / history or just plain good urban design.

Blackrocklifer - So you are saying that someone who citicizes a preservationist for any of a variety of different reasons is not community minded? That by questioning the validity of saving a structure, or the motives for keeping a structure that prevents development of a new one (think HO silos), a person is not being community minded? That questioning the motives of a few people with a narrow focus is a bad thing for the community?

I think that you have a very narrow perspective on the world and what truly creates success in the city.

Enrique, Can you give an example of preservationists getting really annoying?

All in all this has been a good conversation. At least with the rise of the internet people are aware of what is happening a little more giving them a chance to understand, organize and work together. I do feel that we should learn from this event more than any other to help setup a process that will locate existing in danger structures worth saving and get something done with them before it comes to another 12th hour injunction.

Where to begin?

The funny thing is, we appreciate all these old buildings while forgetting that something had to be demolished (in many of these locations) to build them. What magnificent example of 1800's architecture might have been razed in order to build the Jersey St. Livery? I support preservation to an extent as long as it's balanced with progress. I think there are some great historical structures here that have been, and should be, saved and restored for future use. But I don't think that applies to absolutely everything. We're so afraid in this town of taking risks because we've taken some before (half-assed) and they didn't end up well. I wonder what people 100 years ago would've thought.

Man that picture of the Birge Mansion is amazing! But seriously, what is the plan for after the court battle? Even if the underdog wins, and the Court rules against demolition, what is the plan? There are often many advocates for plans, but in all the comments regarding this livery, I have not seen one plan put forth. There have been plenty of - - - "I have heard that a friends friend once put in an offer" or "Shore it up and wait for someone to come along"...well, I am too lazy to look, but somewhere there was a statement regarding the cost of fixing the roof to be at $1 million alone...seems prohibitive to me...Why can't there be a compromise here. Save the facade (like the building pictured above on Delaware), knock down then remainder of the building and then wait for someone to come along and build out from the front. The City can then keep a very close eye on the current owner, "encourage" him to sell it and then everybody can come out a winner. Certainly that would cut wayyyy back on the costs for the roof or any other structural costs related to saving the ENTIRE building. It seems to me, given the size of the plot, a cool residential building could then re-surface with room for a great courtyard. As comeone once said on this site, that's my $0.02. Good luck in court!

great post. I had no idea the birge mansion almost had a date with the wrecking ball. I walked by it a few months ago and was in awe of it's beauty. thanks for the info.

Benfranklin,

All of these buildings had major structural problems before they were renovated. As a matter of fact 591 Delaware had no structure at all. After a 4 alarm fire it was left with just 3 walls, Demolition had actually started on the Squier House before it was saved. The roof and three floors of the Web Building had collapsed. Its owner at the time repeatedly asked to have it demolished because it "could not be saved". The tower of Delaware Asbury church was crumbling. Barricades sat around the building for close to a decade.

Save the Glenny Drive apartments!

Fine, the new print shop is better than the old, run down brick building that was there. Your saying that the old airport was not replaced by the new one is comical... now that's quibbling.

Considering the three empty lots in and around the building that came down for the new print shop is not a very good example of the necessity of demolition for development pressure. They could have chopped off the back half of the building and taken over a portion of the much larger empty lot next to the former building to get the room they needed with the connection to their current facility.

As hamp said, there is no reason to take down anything for anything because if you look down the block in either direction odds are there is already a plethora of room for anyone needed expansion.

@fredrico I can't agree with you more.

Tiny cars, trains, and adaptive reuse!

great article. how easily we forget. Somehow demolition has become synonymous with progress...

Man that picture of the Birge Mansion is amazing! But seriously, what is the plan for after the court battle? Even if the underdog wins, and the Court rules against demolition, what is the plan? There are often many advocates for plans, but in all the comments regarding this livery, I have not seen one plan put forth. There have been plenty of - - - "I have heard that a friends friend once put in an offer" or "Shore it up and wait for someone to come along"...well, I am too lazy to look, but somewhere there was a statement regarding the cost of fixing the roof to be at $1 million alone...seems prohibitive to me...Why can't there be a compromise here. Save the facade (like the building pictured above on Delaware), knock down then remainder of the building and then wait for someone to come along and build out from the front. The City can then keep a very close eye on the current owner, "encourage" him to sell it and then everybody can come out a winner. Certainly that would cut wayyyy back on the costs for the roof or any other structural costs related to saving the ENTIRE building. It seems to me, given the size of the plot, a cool residential building could then re-surface with room for a great courtyard. As comeone once said on this site, that's my $0.02. Good luck in court!

Those are some awesome buildings. Is there any pictures around of all these buildings lowest point before they were restored?

Sorry. Are there any pictures around of these buildings lowest point before they were restored?

[I'm not an engineer, but...]

Is it possible to use the same kind of giant airbag that they use to return a flipped semi-truck back onto its wheels to hold up the building's upper floors while a more traditional support system is erected?

They also use airbags to launch ships (just google it, you'll find examples), so I don't think the weight of this building would be a problem.

The airbag would distribute the load evenly across the floor below and the ceiling above.

[Like I said, I'm not an engineer.]

how sweet would it have been to urbex the Birge Mansion back then? Wish I was around back then for it.

Even with the examples shown here, there are those that will still dismiss them. Either to just be a jerk, or they enjoy crumpling parking lots and enpty fields.

Thanks for the post. We have examples here of facade only, collapsed roofs and floors/etc.

Two step process. Stopping the demo would be a plus, but what action is next to ensure that either the current owner gets up to speed, or the building is transferred to an entity that will take the required actions to at least stabilize the building? Just a win in court only guarantees the status quo.

nyc - on the Buff News website today, it implies there is someone seeking to purchase the building. That is the best news I've heard yet. Because I think anyone who believes this structure can be mainatined vacant is delusional. It is falling apart. It either gets reused soon, or becomes insalvagable very quickly (in my opinion). Its passed a tipping point - I don't see how the status quo helps anyone.

Does the Buffalo Airport count????

ARTOFROCK - You summed it up perfectly! Excellent post!

Recently I just posted the Central Terminal to National Trust for Historic Preservation, "This Place Matters." LINK

I'm all about keeping these magnificent historic buildings. No mention of the Central Terminal here??

davvid that article is funny in a way because if we still constructed buildings with the quality, grandeur and urban design and cutting edge as the Ellicott Square Building today I think preservationist as a word wouldn't exist.

I went and checked the Richardson's website and it does seem up-to-date with a plan to start renovating soon, a visitor center and more. Sounds very promising, but why isn't this news hitting the media yet?